Sidebar Site Navigation

September 15, 2010 — "Religion Today" is contributed by the University of Wyoming's
Religious Studies Program to examine and to promote discussion of
religious issues.

By Paul V.M. Flesher

A common charge leveled against religion is that it is irrational.
Although this charge has been around for centuries, it has recently
gained new currency through proponents such as Ayn Rand, Christopher
Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins -- and now apparently Stephen Hawking.

What does it mean to say, "religion is not rational?" That's a good
question, because rationality itself has many different definitions.
They range from notions so vague that every thought not markedly insane
is rational to formulations so strict that no idea is rational unless it
meets several philosophical tests.

The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences gives its
initial characterization of rationality as requiring "justified beliefs
and sensible goals as well as judicious decisions." The three criteria
here suggest an answer to our question. Since most religions and
religious people are capable of formulating sensible goals and making
judicious decisions, it must be the justified beliefs where the problem
lies.

The Enlightenment of the 18th century attacked religion -
Christianity in particular - for having "beliefs" that could not be
justified or proven, such as the belief in a god, which it labeled as a
superstitious fantasy.

On the one hand, this intellectual movement was highly successful,
for it became the basis for the scientific and technological revolution
that shaped and continues to shape our modern world. On the other hand,
although the Enlightenment demonstrated that there was no rational proof
for a god's existence, it failed to prove there was no god or gods. It
ran into the problem that absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence. The Enlightenment showed by its criteria that religion was
irrational, but it did not demonstrate that religion was wrong.

So religion is irrational. So what? Do human beings live such
rational lives that religion should be seen as a detriment?

Of course not. Humans base surprising few of their decisions and
actions on rationality.

What is your favorite color or ice cream flavor? Which sports team do
you root for, or do you detest sports?

If you are married, did you pick your spouse on a rational basis or
did you fall in love? Was it "love at first sight"? That's not rational!

What about your friends? Did you rationally choose them out of a list
ranking their best qualities, or are they just people you happened to
meet and hang out with?

What do you do as a hobby or when you are relaxing? What are your
favorite TV shows? Are these rational choices or just what you enjoy?

You know you should loose weight, but just one more cookie . . . .

Guys, what about your preference in cars? Or is it trucks or
motorcycles? Do you lust after a Lexis or a Mercedes, or would you
rather have a Ferrari or a Jag? Sure, you can debate their strengths and
weaknesses, but (imagine a low, slow whisper here) what do you really
want?

Think about the process of buying a vehicle. We select a few choices
(rationally, of course!) and test drive them. We then pick the one we
"like" or the one that feels "comfortable." Hardly a rational decision!

Gals, what about your look? You know, the style of clothes you choose
to wear, the way you put on your make-up (or not), your hair style? Are
these simply rational decisions devoid of feeling and emotion or do
they result from aesthetic choices? To put it more simply, do you wear
what "looks good" on you?

These observations are offered tongue-in-cheek, but they aim to make a
simple point. Humans do not really lead rational lives. Many of our
everyday thoughts, decisions and activities have little to do with
rationality. Indeed, the real surprise is that we manage to think and
act rationally as much as we do. So the accusation that religion is
irrational simply means that it is like most of the way we live our
lives.